AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1962 (11) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer in the exercise of his powers of revision under section 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, issued a notice and revised the order of assessment. He did not however deal with the appeal that was before him at the same time. That revision order dealt with the turnover other than the turnover of the sales at the canteen. Against this order made in revision an appeal was taken to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed and from that order of dismissal a revision petition was taken to the High Court which also failed. During all this time it may be mentioned that the appeal filed by the assessee still remained undisposed of. In the meantime the Act of 1939 was replaced by Act I of 1959 and under the provisions of that Act the pending appeal stood transferred to the corresponding appellate authority, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appellate authority took the view that when the Commercial Tax Officer made the order in revision under section 12(1) of the Act of 1939, the original assessment was replaced by the revised assessment and that the original assessment order was no longer in force. Notwithstanding that the appeal was pending, the Commercial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order in revision passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. It is not for us to indicate how the appellants, who no doubt find themselves in an awkward position, should work out their relief at this stage, in regard to the canteen sales which have been held to be not assessable, both by the High Court of Madras in the Gannon Dunkerley case and the Supreme Court in appeal therefrom. . . . . . . ." The Tribunal thus concluded that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that the appeal before him was liable to be dismissed is correct. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed. All the authorities including the Tribunal appear to be fully conscious of the fact that the procedure adopted by the Commercial Tax Officer was wholly erroneous and improper. Under the 1939 Act the Commercial Tax Officer is both an appellate and a revisional authority. There was an appeal pending before him from the order of assessment in so far as the turnover of the canteen sales was concerned. At the same time the Commercial Tax Officer, as the revisional authority issued a notice seeking to revise the order of assessment to the extent to which he thoug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the view that the Act provides two independent hierarchies of tribunals, one to exercise appellate jurisdiction and the other to exercise revisional jurisdiction each functioning independent of the other in their respective fields with reference to the same order of assessment. It is principally relying upon this decision that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the revised order having taken the place of the original order of assessment and that revised order having been the subject-matter of appeal to the Tribunal and revision to the High Court, it is not open to the assessee to attack any part of the original order of assessment. The facts of the above decision require to be referred to in order to understand the implications thereof. An assessment was challenged by an appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer. A further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal failed. A revision to the High Court also proved ineffectual. During the pendency of the revision before the High Court, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes initiated proceedings suo motu to revise the assessment confirmed by the Commercial Tax Officer on appeal. Overruling the objections of the assessee the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t up before the Tribunal, the Tribunal would have been competent to deal with that part of the order of assessment which had been impliedly dismissed by the Commercial Tax Officer. The Tribunal overlooking this feature and the circumstance that it dealt with only the revised part of the assessment did not give an effective disposal to the disputed part of the turnover, the dispute with regard to which was at no time adjudicated upon. When all the Tribunals constituted under the Act were conscious of the fact that one part of the turnover was the subject-matter of an appeal and was pending disposal, we can see no principle either of equity or of law which compels us to hold that the right of the assessee to be afforded relief against the taxation of a part of the turnover which has been declared to be illegal by the highest Court of the land should still (sic) be maintained. On behalf of the petitioner a decision in Central Indian Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer[1963] 47 I.T.R. 895. has been referred to. That was a case where the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the losses of earlier years should be allowed to be carried forward and set off against the income ....